Bombay High Court
Ku. Vatchhala D/O. Bhagwan Bansod ... vs Shri. Chandrabhan Janardhan ... on 6 December, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-cra25.16.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICTION No.25 OF 2016
Ku. Vatchhala d/o. Bhagwan Bansod,
(deceased), through L.R.
Smt. Kamal, w/o. Manohar Bagde,
Aged 70 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. C/o. Shri M.S. Bagde, Advocate,
N-49, Sneh Nagar, Wardha Road,
Nagpur. ig : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
Shri Chandrabhan Janardhan Patil,
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Plot No.4, The Thawre CHS, Ltd.,
House No.6729/4, Ward No.20,
New Subhedar Layout, Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri P.S. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Non-applicant.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 6
DECEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard finally by consent.
2. This order challenges the legality and correctness of the
order dated 25th November, 2015 passed below Exhs.15 and 16 in
J-cra25.16.odt 2/3
Regular Civil Suit No.3765/2012 by the 3 rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Nagpur.
3. Upon going through the extract of the roznama of the suit,
one can see that the whole controversy has arisen because of the late
communication regarding death of the original defendant being given to
the Court by the learned counsel for the deceased defendant. A Pursis in
this regard was filed on 7th October, 2013 at a time when the suit was
already adjourned for the next date. Next date given was of 7.12.2013.
The Pursis, however, came to be filed at 4.25 p.m. of 7.10.2013. There is
nothing available on record showing that a copy of this Pursis was given
to the original plaintiff or learned counsel for the original plaintiff. The
roznama also does not show that the Court, on its part, complied with
the mandate of Rule 10(a), Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This Rule places a duty upon the Court to give notice of death of one
party to the other party. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for
the applicant that a serious and baseless allegation has been made
against the then learned counsel of the original defendant has to be
understood in the context of the mistake initially committed by none
other than the learned counsel for the defendant. At this stage, I do not
wish to go into the controversy relating to making of the allegation. The
fact remains, however, that there was no communication given to the
original plaintiff or his learned counsel, as required under the law,
J-cra25.16.odt 3/3
regarding death of the original defendant. If this is so, no illegality or
incorrectness in allowing the application filed for condonation of delay
and setting aside the abatement of the suit against the deceased
defendant could be seen. There is no merit in this application. It
deserves to be dismissed.
4. The application stands dismissed. No costs.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that
one of the legal heirs of the original defendant, about which there is a
dispute, is aged about 70 years and, therefore, the Regular Civil Suit
No.3765/2012 along with other connected matter needs to be decided
finally at the earliest. Learned counsel for the original plaintiff/non-
applicant has no objection.
Considering the age of Smt. Kamal Bagde, it would be
appropriate that both these matters are decided finally as expeditiously
as possible and, therefore, learned Civil Judge is requested to dispose of
these matters with all expedition at his command and preferably within
one year from the date of order.
JUDGE
okMksns
